Which Civ game is the best? 4, 5, or 6?

[GlitchyRobot]

[GlitchyRobot]

I don't know if I should get THIS or Civ 4 + beyond the sword. Or should I get neither of them and stick with Civ 5 and all the expansions I have?

[physbo]

Depends on game play you want, Civ 3 still holds true to my heart because thats the only game I ever actually started a world war like real life.

[tulle040657]

3 but they all have their pluses and minuses,none of them are bad

[Gedemon]

There is no "best", just personal taste, for mine civ4 win.

[RamboRusina]

For me it would be 4>5>6. Going from 4 to 5 game got too simplified, but I get that it was done to target larger audience so fair enough. From 5 to 6 I have no idea for whom they tried to market the game. No only did they yet again try to simplify the game into war game with no alternative strategies but also removed automated functions so it was like they didn't want hard core nor casual players to play the game.

[Doom monkey]

Originally posted by RamboRusina:

For me it would be 4>5>6. Going from 4 to 5 game got too simplified, but I get that it was done to target larger audience so fair enough. From 5 to 6 I have no idea for whom they tried to market the game. No only did they yet again try to simplify the game into war game with no alternative strategies but also removed automated functions so it was like they didn't want hard core nor casual players to play the game.

I absolutely agree with this. Civ4 was the best overall. It also has a lot of really great mods for it that make it even better.

Civ5 and 6 are kind of the watered down version of civ4 with much much worse AI. Literally, you will never have a challenge from the AI in civ6 if you learn to fight even a little bit.

In civ4 as someone said, if the AI declares war on you, you might actually be in trouble. Certainly you need to do more than send a few ranged units over to kill everyone.

civ4 also had some diplomacy options that are SORELY lacking in later civs. You can create vassals, you can force empires you're beating to become your vassal. Often games end up with a few empires and their vassals facing off. It means that parity stays around a lot longer.

In civ6, i end up wiping out civs because ♥♥♥♥ it, everyone already hates me even though i'm fighting a war they started and if they're truly dead, i never have to have them ask me (in the same turn as everyone else) for 6 GPT in exchange for NOTHING.

civ6 has some nice stuff in it, but it's basically role playing civ game. There's never a challenge short of the AI starting with 5x your units and 3x your cities and rushing you, and then it only feels like its a stacked deck.

Civ4 has some other nice things. I has an advanced start mode where you get points and can design your civ right from the start with techs and cities and whatnot. The game then starts from there.

It has much better restrictions on tall vs wide. In civ6 you might as well always build as much as you can, in civ4 there are milestones you need to hit before its worth going wider, and then there are govt decisions that make it so you can go really really wide or not.

[GlitchyRobot]

Ok which game has the best combat? Can you do more in Civ 4? Which game has the best AI?

[GlitchyRobot]

Originally posted by Doom monkey:

Originally posted by RamboRusina:

For me it would be 4>5>6. Going from 4 to 5 game got too simplified, but I get that it was done to target larger audience so fair enough. From 5 to 6 I have no idea for whom they tried to market the game. No only did they yet again try to simplify the game into war game with no alternative strategies but also removed automated functions so it was like they didn't want hard core nor casual players to play the game.

I absolutely agree with this. Civ4 was the best overall. It also has a lot of really great mods for it that make it even better.

Civ5 and 6 are kind of the watered down version of civ4 with much much worse AI. Literally, you will never have a challenge from the AI in civ6 if you learn to fight even a little bit.

In civ4 as someone said, if the AI declares war on you, you might actually be in trouble. Certainly you need to do more than send a few ranged units over to kill everyone.

civ4 also had some diplomacy options that are SORELY lacking in later civs. You can create vassals, you can force empires you're beating to become your vassal. Often games end up with a few empires and their vassals facing off. It means that parity stays around a lot longer.

In civ6, i end up wiping out civs because ♥♥♥♥ it, everyone already hates me even though i'm fighting a war they started and if they're truly dead, i never have to have them ask me (in the same turn as everyone else) for 6 GPT in exchange for NOTHING.

civ6 has some nice stuff in it, but it's basically role playing civ game. There's never a challenge short of the AI starting with 5x your units and 3x your cities and rushing you, and then it only feels like its a stacked deck.

Civ4 has some other nice things. I has an advanced start mode where you get points and can design your civ right from the start with techs and cities and whatnot. The game then starts from there.

It has much better restrictions on tall vs wide. In civ6 you might as well always build as much as you can, in civ4 there are milestones you need to hit before its worth going wider, and then there are govt decisions that make it so you can go really really wide or not.

Ok which game has the best combat? Can you do more in Civ 4? Which game has the best AI?

[Wundsalz]

Originally posted by GlitchyRobot:

Ok which game has the best combat? Can you do more in Civ 4? Which game has the best AI?

Certainly neither Civ 5 or Civ 6. The AI still doesn't even do a half decent job at positioning units properly since doom stacks aren't a thing anymore.

That being said as a new player I'd start with Civ 6.

[Jesper]

With no nostalgic reasons, it's probably best to go for Civ 6. There's more depth to the titles the newer they are so you could say they're objectively better for that reason.

[Lady Crimson (RIP)]

6 Is the most interesting, but 5 is better balanced.

However 5 also is a wonder rush game, so you have to limit yourself or play at deity to really have fun with it after a while.

As for the A.I. well, at deity they seem to fight just fine.

6 has a harder time at later tech eras, but the A.I. seems pretty solid to me. Maybe it's a difficulty level thing, but I always go up against tons of a.i. anyways.

[Lady Crimson (RIP)]

Originally posted by Doom monkey:

Originally posted by RamboRusina:

For me it would be 4>5>6. Going from 4 to 5 game got too simplified, but I get that it was done to target larger audience so fair enough. From 5 to 6 I have no idea for whom they tried to market the game. No only did they yet again try to simplify the game into war game with no alternative strategies but also removed automated functions so it was like they didn't want hard core nor casual players to play the game.

I absolutely agree with this. Civ4 was the best overall. It also has a lot of really great mods for it that make it even better.

Civ5 and 6 are kind of the watered down version of civ4 with much much worse AI. Literally, you will never have a challenge from the AI in civ6 if you learn to fight even a little bit.

In civ4 as someone said, if the AI declares war on you, you might actually be in trouble. Certainly you need to do more than send a few ranged units over to kill everyone.

civ4 also had some diplomacy options that are SORELY lacking in later civs. You can create vassals, you can force empires you're beating to become your vassal. Often games end up with a few empires and their vassals facing off. It means that parity stays around a lot longer.

In civ6, i end up wiping out civs because ♥♥♥♥ it, everyone already hates me even though i'm fighting a war they started and if they're truly dead, i never have to have them ask me (in the same turn as everyone else) for 6 GPT in exchange for NOTHING.

civ6 has some nice stuff in it, but it's basically role playing civ game. There's never a challenge short of the AI starting with 5x your units and 3x your cities and rushing you, and then it only feels like its a stacked deck.

Civ4 has some other nice things. I has an advanced start mode where you get points and can design your civ right from the start with techs and cities and whatnot. The game then starts from there.

It has much better restrictions on tall vs wide. In civ6 you might as well always build as much as you can, in civ4 there are milestones you need to hit before its worth going wider, and then there are govt decisions that make it so you can go really really wide or not.

If you want the vassal stuff, and other diplomatic options.

Stellaris is a great game to get into, although that's science fiction.

Civ6 does have more diplomatic options than 5 though, since you can have different types of allies with different bonuses.

[The Silent CivVer]

Originally posted by RamboRusina:

For me it would be 4>5>6. Going from 4 to 5 game got too simplified, but I get that it was done to target larger audience so fair enough. From 5 to 6 I have no idea for whom they tried to market the game. No only did they yet again try to simplify the game into war game with no alternative strategies but also removed automated functions so it was like they didn't want hard core nor casual players to play the game.

Could you explain how policies are more simplified in V vs IV?

In Civ V you have 9 policy tress and then an ideology pyramid. That's a lot of potential decisions to make (dependent on your decision how much to invest in culture). Civ IV has 5 blocks of civics with 5 choices in, with the first civic having no effect...as well as civics being unlocked by the tech tree, along with everything else...

Oh, and in Civ IV you can ameliorate poor choices by 'switching' civics with a minor penalty. In Civ V you have to stick with your policy decisions; hence you have to plan long term and cannot undo poor choices.

[TornadoADV]

SMAC because I'm a rebel.

[logicdat]

4 > 6 > 5 imo, after bumped into civ 6, no reason to back to 5